End of VFR?

[John Pleisse]

Having to file in an IFR only system is the pathway to user fees.

[1964-M20E]

VFR and IFR should remain the same as they are now.  Yes there are unknown targets seen by ATC but the problems from those are very small.  The bigger problem today is everyone is willing to give up liberty or freedom for imagined security or safety.  Once freedom or liberty is given up it is very difficult to get it back.

 

Went for a VFR flight yesterday smack dab under a Class B airspace started out within 3 miles of the Class B airport and avoided Class B airspace.  Never talked to anyone but home field CTAF.  At one point I tuned into ATC approach and listened but never spoke to them and never heard them talking about me.

[jetdriven]

Having to file in an IFR only system is the pathway to user fees.

So IF they "ban VFR" and then we "might" have user fees. There are many more pressing issues to worry about, such as falling asleep on the couch and burning the BBQ chicken.

Do any of these "doomsday forecasters" ever have to be right?

[BigTex]

... falling asleep on the couch and burning the BBQ chicken.

Byron - you speaking from personally experience?

[John Pleisse]

So IF they "ban VFR" and then we "might" have user fees. There are many more pressing issues to worry about, such as falling asleep on the couch and burning the BBQ chicken.

Do any of these "doomsday forecasters" ever have to be right?

 

Well, it is a mathematical certainty that if it involves flying and having to pay a dime more to do it, you'd be the first to be concerned.  The FAA and the White House have publicly proposed a $100 user fee to be in the system, not just IFR. This is a fact, unlike the "Flying Magazine" blog of conjecture that started this whole discussion.

 

Don't get any BBQ sauce on the couch.

[Marauder]

United States Postal Service...

[jetdriven]

Well, it is a mathematical certainty that if it involves flying and having to pay a dime more to do it, you'd be the first to be concerned.  The FAA and the White House have publicly proposed a $100 user fee to be in the system, not just IFR. This is a fact, unlike the "Flying Magazine" blog of conjecture that started this whole discussion.

 

Don't get any BBQ sauce on the couch.

Source?

 

This is all I could find:

"Under the proposal, the government would charge the $100 per flight fee to turbine general and business aviation airplanes flying on IFR flight plans as a “surcharge” to pay for ATC services. Aviation groups including NBAA, AOPA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association say the industry isn’t opposed to paying more for such services, but the mechanism should be an increase in the tax on jet fuel and not user fees."

 

thats a proposal for a user fee for business and turbine aircraft.  The "Fact" is it is  the same as every year's proposal for the last 20 years.  Nothing new, and no action taken.

[John Pleisse]

"No segment of aviation can count itself immune once the bureaucratic structure for user fees is introduced. User fees bypass congressional budgeting processes and can be raised or expanded at will". Sarah Brown, AOPA 1/12

 

"We have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service with respect to air traffic services", this includes piston-powered aircraft in controlled airspace. Dana Hyde -Office of Management and Budget-1/12.

 

There has been no activity on this issue since spring of 2012. To take anyone at their word on turbine/commercial only, is absurd.

 

You are mincing a poorly conceived, political blog from Flying Magazine, with likely imminent public policy. One could lead to the other, but clearly, user fees have been in the mix for some time. Did you read the original post on this thread from Flying Magazine and its assertions?

[John Pleisse]

Source?

 

This is all I could find:

"Under the proposal, the government would charge the $100 per flight fee to turbine general and business aviation airplanes flying on IFR flight plans as a “surcharge” to pay for ATC services. Aviation groups including NBAA, AOPA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association say the industry isn’t opposed to paying more for such services, but the mechanism should be an increase in the tax on jet fuel and not user fees."

 

Oh, and you didn't source the above, either.

[jetdriven]

"No segment of aviation can count itself immune once the bureaucratic structure for user fees is introduced. User fees bypass congressional budgeting processes and can be raised or expanded at will". Sarah Brown, AOPA 1/12

 

"We have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service with respect to air traffic services", this includes piston-powered aircraft in controlled airspace. Dana Hyde -Office of Management and Budget-1/12.

 

There has been no activity on this issue since spring of 2012. To take anyone at their word on turbine/commercial only, is absurd.

 

You are mincing a poorly conceived, political blog from Flying Magazine, with likely imminent public policy. One could lead to the other, but clearly, user fees have been in the mix for some time. Did you read the original post on this thread from Flying Magazine and its assertions?

 

Source:  Flying Magazine,  here's your link:   http://bit.ly/1dL5Duh

 

However, In cant find a source for this statement, which is the basis for your slippery slope" argument.  Care to provide it?

"We have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service with respect to air traffic services", this includes piston-powered aircraft in controlled airspace. Dana Hyde -Office of Management and Budget-1/12.

 

 

And one more thing, most people concede it is a non sequitur to correlate an increase in DHS ramp checks to the banning of VFR private flying and user fees.  Tin foil hat stuff, brah.  That OP article is National Enquirer quality.  Rather than get all worked up about something that might happen, which might lead to something that is not likely to happen, which might possible mean the progression of something else happening...... Go flying and calm down.

 

But first, the link to the OMB asking form piston user fees.

[jetdriven]

Pilots were doing that 15 years ago (probably earlier, too) with VFR LORAN. Not new.

 

the the FAF for an approach?  I like it, but I never did that with a LORAN.

[John Pleisse]

Glad you finally read the blog.

 

It is conjecture, baseless and by design, intended to get everyone rallied-up. To intentionally elicit a response. Kind of like Craig Fuller shooting his mouth off about nothing and somebody jumping on Mooneyspace authoring a thread about politics in AOPA.

 

We're the suckers. They wrote the blog and social media went to work. This is why people log on and why MS threads like this get 1,400 hits, while threads about Duke's actuators get 70 hits. In fact, one of the only real accuracies in this thread is the EAA link below:

 

Byron: But first, the link to the OMB asking form piston user fees

 

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-01-13_equitable.asp

 

It has to do with using the system. If you are in controlled airspace, the administration wants a fee, regardless of piston, ambulance or other. The key phrase for all of this is "in controlled airspace"  So clearly, EAA must have asked the magic question or they would not have printed it in their presser (brah).